Gender In Judeo-Christian Tradition: A Critique on Christian Feminist Philosophies and a Presentation of the Loyalist View

The history of Western legal thought
has often been blamed for laying the philosophical foundations of gender
subordination. Although philosophers from Plato to Rousseau expounded on the
natural inferiority of the female gender, Judeo-Christian doctrine has perhaps
received the most criticism from feminist thinkers as providing an ideological
justification for gender inequality. This paper seeks to address such
challenges from traditional feminists by first, examining the roots of female
subordination from early Judeo-Christian philosophies, and second, surveying
the emerging branches of Christian Feminism which purport to reconcile Biblical
texts with the goals of gender equality.

By way of introduction, Part I of
this paper provides a brief overview on the role of gender in traditional
Judeo-Christian thought. Second, Part II of this paper sets forth the five
schools of Christian Feminism and discusses their methods of Biblical
interpretation. In addition, this section critiques the approaches of the
various schools and concludes that the Loyalist School is the most defensible branch of
Christian Feminism. Finally, Part III applies Loyalist philosophy and presents
a model of women’s roles in the family, church, and greater society.

I. GENDER IN EARLY
JUDEO-CHRISTIAN PHILOSOPHY

A. PLATO AND ARISTOTLE

A discussion of Judeo-Christian
philosophy would not be complete without an understanding of the views of the
ancient Greek philosophers. From his theory on the creation of humankind,
Plato provided a philosophical foundation for gender inequality that was
implicitly adopted by the Jewish and Christian thinkers that followed him. According
to Platonic creationism, all souls were originally implanted in male bodies and
given volition, sensation, and emotion.[1] Comprised of
only males, the first community of souls enjoyed equality with one another.[2]
However, the soul of a man who conquered his emotions and developed his
intellect would be blessed after his death and reborn as a man. In contrast, a
man who failed to master his irrational, emotional proclivities was considered
incapable of reason and would be reborn as a woman.[3]

Moreover, Plato only briefly
discussed the creation of women in conjunction with the creation of birds,
mammals, reptiles, and fish.[4] By placing
women on the same level as animals, Plato revealed an underlying view of women
as not fully human.Mustafa K. Kasubhai further elaborates on Plato’s
creationism and its effect of subordinating women to men:

This theory maintains that women not only follow men,
but are less than perfect men, returned to earthly life in order to perfect
themselves. If women, by Plato’s terms, are those men who fell prey to their
irrational, emotional side, and are therefore incapable of reason, it
syllogistically follows that women are incapable of making rational choices...
Moreover, as irrational beings, women may not always know what they really
want, and so it is the man’s domain to decide for them.[5]

In his Republic, Plato
accordingly presented a utopian vision of the ideal state in which truth,
morality, and intellect should be valued over emotion.[6]
As such virtues were directly associated with males, men were viewed as
naturally suited for governance of the state. In contrast, women were properly
confined to the private sphere of the family. However, Plato made allowances
for women to participate in social governance. He declared that “if the
difference [between men and women] consists only in women bearing and men
begetting children, this does not amount to proof that a woman differs from a
man in respect to the sort of education she should receive; and we shall
therefore continue to maintain that our guardians and their wives ought to have
the same pursuits.”[7]

Modern scholarship has often
interpreted Plato as being open to gender equality. In a recent opinion,
Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg noted that in Plato’s ideal society,
“women’s native ability to serve as guardians was not seriously questioned.”[8]
Rather, Ginsberg argued that Plato merely expressed concern over the wrestling
and exercise classes in which all candidates for guardianship were required to
participate, given that Greek custom prescribed that physical training be
conducted in the nude. Plato concluded that women could undergo their training
clothed so as not to deprive society of the talent of otherwise qualified
citizens.

Despite the fact that women were
capable of performing most of the duties of men, Plato also maintained that “in
all, woman is rather weaker than man.”[9] Moreover,
women were required to divorce themselves from their private role as mothers in
order to become rulers. All children are held in common so that Plato’s ideal
ruling class could function wholly undistracted by private family interests.
Thus, the public sphere of governance, in which the rulers engaged in
intellectual discourse was viewed as incompatible with the private realm of
family life.[10] In
conclusion, although women could participate equally in the intellectual
pursuits of the state, they could do so only if they removed themselves from
their biological and societal role as mothers.

By rejecting the maternal role of women,
Plato expressed an underlying fear of gender difference.[11]
Moreover, Plato advocated gender sameness in the Republic by comparing
the similar functions of female and male dogs and concluding that human society
should emulate the canine world.[12] Jenny Wald
argues that in revering intellect, Plato’s philosophy subordinated the body,
with its reproductive capabilities, to the mind. Metaphorically, Plato thus
subordinated nature to culture, mother to father, and female to male.[13]

Like Plato, Aristotle believed in the
inherent superiority of men over women. Aristotle expounded at length on the
physical differences between male and female animals as examples of male
superiority. For example, he noted that males were larger, longer-lived,
stronger, and more articulated.[14] Aristotle
suggested that female physiology was defective compared to the male body, and
syllogistically, that men were intellectually superior to women. From this
proposition, Aristotle concluded that women should be ruled by men: “It is clear
that the rule of the soul over the body, and of the mind and the rational
element over the passionate, is natural and expedient... Again, the male is by
nature superior, and the female inferior; this principle, of necessity, extends
to all mankind... the one rules, and the other is ruled. . . . The courage of a
man is shown in commanding, of a woman in obeying.”[15]

Like Plato, Aristotle
believed that the natural order of the universe determined the proper roles of
men and women in society.[16] By looking
to the biology of reproduction, Aristotle claimed that males actively provided
the form or soul of the offspring, whereas women passively provided the matter.[17]
Moreover, Aristotle argued that form was more divine than matter, suggesting
that males were superior to females.

In his Politics, Aristotle
applied his view of the woman’s inferior role in reproduction to her role in
society. For example, Aristotle proposed that marriage and reproduction should
be regulated by the state, thereby reflecting an underlying view of women as
breeding vessels and subordinate members of the state.[18]
Moreover, the private maternal role of women served to prevent them from
participating in the public sphere of governance. Unlike Plato, Aristotle
clearly stated that men alone could serve as true citizens, whereas women could
flourish only within confines of the household.[19]

B. RABBINIC TRADITION

The Old Testament provided the Jews
with varied images of women, including the bravery of the prostitute Rahab[20],
the sexual trickery of Judah’s daughter-in-law, Tamar[21],
the courage and wisdom of Queen Esther[22],
the military assertiveness of Deborah[23], the
faithful obedience of Ruth[24], and the
unrelenting wickedness of Jezebel[25]. Despite
examples of capable and honorable women featured in the scriptures, however,
the Rabbinic tradition generally espoused the view that women were inferior to
men. For example, Jesus ben Sirach warned in the Apocrypha: “Do not look upon
any [woman] for beauty, and do not sit in the midst of women; for from the
garments comes the moth, and from a woman comes woman’s wickedness. Better is
the wickedness of a man than a woman who does good; and it is a woman who
brings shame and disgrace.”[26]

Moreover, Judaic philosophers adopted
ideas regarding a soul-flesh dichotomy espoused by Plato and Aristotle.
However, such thinkers elevated the soul to correspond with godliness, thereby
further denigrating the supposed feminine nature of the flesh. Philo, a Jewish
scholar at the time of Christ, wrote concerning men and women:

[There is in the soul a male and female element just
as there is in families, the male corresponding to the men, the female to the
women. The male soul assigns itself to God alone as the Father and Maker of
the Universe and the Cause of all things. The female clings to all that is
born and perishes; it stretches out its faculties like a hand to catch blindly
at what comes in its way, and gives the clasp of friendship to the world of
created things with all its numberless changes and transmutations, instead of
to the divine order, the immutable, the blessed...[27]

Philo also subscribed to Plato and
Aristotle’s views that the weaker nature of women caused them to be
intellectually and morally inferior to men: “[M]ind corresponds to man, the
senses to woman; and pleasure encounters and holds parley with the senses
first, and through them cheats with her quackeries the sovereign minds itself.”[28]
Thus, women were viewed as temptresses of men: “A wife is a selfish creature...
adept at beguiling the morals of her husband.”[29]

After Philo’s generation, Josephus, a
Jewish historian, continued the Judaic teachings on female inferiority.
Josephus interpreted that Jewish law as asserting that a woman should be “inferior
to her husband in all things”[30] and that
women should be barred from testifying in court because of their moral
weaknesses.[31]

C. EARLY CHRISTIAN TRADITION

In early Christian thought, women
were also associated with the inferior nature of the flesh, while men were
aligned with the spirit. Tertullian, a Christian apologist during the first
century, depicted women as temptresses by nature.[32]
His contemporary, Origen, wrote on behalf of the Greek Fathers, that “God does
not stoop to look upon what is feminine.”[33]

The Judeo-Christian account of
creation, in which the first woman was derived from man, provided a
philosophical basis for gender inequality. Eve was described as a wicked
temptress and blamed for the fall of mankind.[34]
Tertullian spoke of Eve with misogynist undertones: “Woman... do you not know
that you are [each] an Eve?. . . You are the Devil’s gateway. You are the unsealer of
that forbidden tree. You are the first deserter of the divine Law. . . On
account of your desert, that is death, even the son of God had to die.”[35]

Augustine and other early Christian
philosophers also suggested that because Adam and Eve were originally created
to live together in a harmonious order of authority and obedience, a husband is
therefore “meant to rule over his wife as the spirit rules the flesh.”[36]
Because a woman’s role in reproduction aligned her with the fleshly nature, she
could rightfully be subjected to the spiritual authority of the male.
Augustine further suggested that women were not created in the image of God but
rather in the imperfect likeness of man; accordingly, women had a natural
weakness and greater propensity toward sin.[37]
Thus, Augustine viewed celibacy as a holier state than marriage, noting that to
join with a woman in matrimony was to make “a covenant with death.”[38]

St. Thomas Aquinas also considered
women to be mentally and physically inferior to men, thereby supporting their
subordination to men.[39] Like Plato,
Aquinas suggested that women lacked the Adiscernment of reason” which was naturally possessed by
men.[40] Moreover,
Aquinas suggested that women were created only to aid in reproduction.[41]
During the Protestant Reformation, John Calvin and John Wesley reaffirmed these
early views by emphasizing that women should be naturally subject to their
husbands.[42]

In contrast to the
temptress Eve, the Virgin Mary represented to early Christian philosophers the
immaculate role of women as mothers.[43] Mary
symbolized the woman’s proper role as the breeding vessel of man, and yet she
was uncorrupted by the fleshly requirement of sexual intercourse.[44]
Mary was exalted for her submissive acceptance of her role as the mother of
Christ, while her own sexual autonomy was denied. Christian doctrine
surrounding the Virgin Mary can thus be compared with Aristotle’s view of
reproduction. As Aristotle believed that man provided the soul to the
offspring, Christian philosophers believed that Mary, a yielding recipient, was
impregnated by the Holy Spirit.[45] Aquinas
adopted Aristotlean thinking and declared that while men provided the active
power in reproduction, women were intended merely to passively aid men in the
work of procreation.[46]

The dual imagery of Eve and Mary in
Judeo-Christian tradition established a view of women as both whore and saint,
evil and sacred. Female sexuality without motherhood, as exemplified in Eve,
was viewed as corrupt, while motherhood without sexuality, as embodied in Mary,
was revered as ideal.[47]
Contemporary legal scholar John H. Arnold suggests that the exaltation of Mary
ultimately objectifies and devalues women: “Mary’s unique role in the plan of
salvation is to acquiesce, to be ‘come upon,’ ‘overshadowed’ by the Spirit of
the Lord, and to conceive a son. . . [T]his [could be] viewed as nothing more
than the classic patriarchal rape‑incest myth.”[48]

Despite their view of women as being
connected with the fleshly nature or as mere vehicles for reproduction, early
Christian philosophers were simultaneously praised for promoting more
liberating relations between men and women within the family and providing
women with higher status than in pre-Christian Roman and Jewish society.[49]
For example, women in pagan Rome were often
excluded from participating in worship services. Jewish leaders also relegated
women to a side chamber or a balcony of their synagogues, so that they could
silently from a distance watch the men read from the Scriptures. The new order
established by Christ and disseminated by the Apostles allowed women not only
to participate in worship services, but encouraged women to prophesy.

In addition, the early church taught men
to abandon their former misogynistic tradition of keeping numerous wives and
concubines. Christ’s teaching on monogamy affirmed the importance of the wife’s
role in the marriage. Women could no longer be viewed as merely fungible and
dispensible sexual property of men. Rather, men and women were to mutually
belong to one another in a covenant of marriage. Contemporary Loyalist John
Bristow maintains that the Apostle Paul’s teachings in fact challenged both the
Hellenic and Jewish traditions of misogyny.[50]
For example, Bristow offers the following examples of Christianity’s liberating impact on gender
relations:

A female is a deformed male, Aristotle taught. Male
and female are one in Christ, Paul declared. Women as well as men are to lead
in worship, Paul noted. Men and women are to be separate during worship,
Jewish custom dictated, and only men count in determining a quorum for
worship. Women are to learn, Paul insisted. Women are inferior to men in
their ability to reason, Aristotle argued. Sexual intercourse in harmful, many
Stoics believed, and marriage distracts a man from the study of philosophy.
Marriage and sexual intimacy are a gift from God, Paul observed... A man’s
courage is in commanding, a woman’s
in obeying, asserted Aristotle. Husbands and wives are to be responsive to the
needs of each other, Paul instructed... Ever since Eve, the Jews were taught,
women have been morally weak and a source of temptation to men. ‘Woman is the
glory of man,’ Paul stated... The authority of a woman belongs first to her
father and then, when she is married, to her husband, Greek and Jewish laws
agreed. A woman shall have authority on her own head, Paul insisted.[51]

Therefore, early Christian thought
presented a mixed view of gender relations. Although some Christian
philosophers viewed women as being either morally blameworthy like Eve or as
passive sexual recipients like Mary, others apparently sought to provide women
with greater freedoms and rights in worship.

As a whole, early Judeo-Christian tradition
perpetuated and transformed the patriarchical views of sex inequality that had
been espoused by Greek philosophers. Jewish and Christian thinkers
disseminated the underlying view that women were inferior by nature and could
therefore be ruled by men. Such views have pervaded through the present era
and pose continual challenges for both Christian and secular feminists. The
following section presents an overview of the various approaches taken by
Christian feminists in opposing the roots of female subordination found in the
Judeo-Christian tradition in particular.

II. SCHOOLS OF CHRISTIAN
FEMINIST PHILOSOPHY

Given the significant influence which
traditional Judeo-Christian philosophy had in the creation of patriarchy in
Western civilization, Biblical re-interpretation naturally emerged as an
inevitable component of Feminist thinking. Historian Gerda Lerner, for
example, argues that criticism of the Bible was a fundamental prerequisite for
women to achieve equality:

Whatever route women took to self-authorization and
whether they were religiously inspired or not, they were confronted by the core
texts of the Bible, which were used for centuries by patriarchical authorities
to define the proper roles for women in society and to justify the subordination
of women... Since male objections to women thinking, teaching and speaking in
public were for centuries based on Biblical authority, the development of
feminist Bible criticism can be seen as an appropriate and perhaps not
unexpected response to the constraints and limitations imposed upon women’s intellectual development by religiously sanctioned
gender definitions. These Biblical core texts sat like huge boulders across
the paths women had to travel in order to define themselves as equals of men.
No wonder they engaged in theological reinterpretation before they could move
on to other, more original and creative ideas.[52]

From the first recorded
re-interpretation of the Bible by a woman named Helie in the second century[53],
women have sought to develop a more accurate and woman-centered commentary of
the holy scriptures. Although contemporary Christian Feminism encompasses
diverse schools of thought, this section adopts the five categories of Feminist
Biblical Interpretation as articulated by Carolyn Osiek[54]
and offers a brief overview of each school.

A. LOYALISTSCHOOL

The Loyalist school of Christian feminism was pioneered by Sarah Moore Grimke, a Quaker
activist of the nineteenth century whose Letters on the Equality of the
Sexes became the most radical feminist work of her time.[55]
Grimke argued that biased male interpretation of the Bible, rather than the
sacred scriptural text itself, created the Judeo-Christian tradition of
subordinating women. Grimke encouraged women to learn Hebrew and Greek to interpret
the Bible themselves, rather than rely upon English versions which were
translated by men:

My mind is entirely delivered from the superstitious
reverence which is attached to the English version of the Bible. King James’
translators certainly were not inspired. I therefore claim the original as my
standard, believing that to have been inspired, and I also claim to judge for
myself what is the meaning of the inspired writers.[56]

A steadfast believer in the
trustworthiness of the original Biblical text, Grimke also simultaneously
championed the cause of gender equality with zeal. Grimke surveyed the status
of women from different cultures such as Asiaand Africa, and from different eras, ranging
from Ancient Mesopotamia through the American present. Grimke also challenged
discrimination on various fronts beyond religious tradition, such as education,
law, and economics. In proclaiming that men had exercised dominion over women
for nearly six thousand years, Grimke pleaded:

All I ask our brethren is... [to] permit us to stand
upright on that ground which God designed us to occupy... All history attests
that man has subjected woman to his will, used her as a means to promote his
selfish gratification, to minister to his sensual pleasures, to be instrumental
in promoting his comfort; but never has he desired to elevate her to that rank
she was created to fill. He has done all he could to debase and enslave her
mind; and now he looks triumphantly on the ruin he has wrought, and says, the
being thus deeply injured is his inferior.[57]

Over a century since Grimke’s death,
feminists of the Loyalist school have continued her work in Biblical
interpretation. Loyalists maintain that the Bible is the infallible Word of
God, and therefore by definition, cannot be oppressive to women.[58]
Scriptural passages which have been cited as advocating the subordination of
women have merely been erroneously interpreted by male commentators.[59]
Accordingly, Loyalists use careful exegesis, comparison of other Biblical
passages, and linguistic analysis to refute literalist interpretations of any
one passage.

However, Loyalists accept that some
hierarchy is necessary for social order. Although men and women are not
intended to exist in a dominance/submission relationship, a structure of
leadership is necessary for unity in the church and society.[60]
In fact, many Loyalists prefer to regard the Bible’s teachings as providing
differentiation, rather than a hierarchy, of roles. When God created male and
female, he made the two different and unique and offered both important roles.
Moreover, contemporary Loyalist Mary Kassian argues that gender differentiation
and gender equality need not be mutually exclusive:

The Bible does not teach the inequality of men and
women. Each person, man or woman, stands before God as an individual created
in the image of God, and at the same time as a sinner in need of salvation.
Therefore, each person, whether male or female, has at the same time both an
infinite equality of worth before God and one another, and a total equality of
need for Jesus Christ as savior. However, the equality of man and woman does
not undermine the difference between the sexes. It allows for the realization
and fulfillment of this difference. Biblical equality affirms that although
both male and female are created in the image of God, they exist as
complementary expressions of the image of God... Those who have unduly
restricted the Biblical freedom of women are just as guilty of abusing God’s pattern as those who have cast aside all boundaries.[61]

B. REJECTIONISTSCHOOL

In direct contrast with the
Loyalists, proponents of the RejectionistSchool advocate the complete rejection of
the Bible. According to Rejectionists, Christian texts are inherently and
irreparably oppressive to women. Theologians Carol A. Newsom and Sharon H.
Ringe describe the Rejectionist school as one which entirely forgoes Biblical
interpretation and opts for a religion based upon women’s life experience:

According to this view, the authority of human experience,
and especially of women’s experience, to identify norms of justice and dignity
stands in judgment over the human words of the Biblical text: What is
wrong in the treatment of women today always was wrong, and to continue
to find any value in literature that perpetuates such wrong can only extend the
harm done. For these readers, the interpretative task relative to the Bible is
set aside, and the foundations of women’s spirituality and women’s religious
experience are sought elsewhere.[62]

Elizabeth Cady Stanton, an early
Rejectionist, argued that the Judeo-Christian tradition, given its
patriarchical roots, was intrinsically oppressive to women.[63]Stanton believed that the plain language of
the Old and New Testaments provided a foundation for the subordination of
women. Influenced by her leadership, the Women’s National Liberal Union
declared in its formal position on the Christianity that it rejected the
Christian religion:

[T]he Christian church of whatever name is based on
the theory that woman was created secondary and inferior to man and brought sin
into the world, thus necessitating the sacrifice of the Saviour... Christianity
is false and its foundation a myth which every discovery in science shows to be
as baseless as its former belief that the earth was flat.[64]

In 1895, Stanton and her colleague,
Matilda Gage, published The Woman’s Bible, a summary of Biblical
criticism. For example, Stanton and Gage noted in discussing the Genesis
account of creation, that Darwinian evolutionary theory undermined the entire
Biblical story and that common sense indicated that a snake could not have
spoken to Eve. Stanton ultimately concluded after
completing the collaborative work that the Bible was merely a text of “Hebrew
mythology” which was “far less attractive in style and less refined in
sentiment” compared with Greek mythology.[65]

Over seventy years later,
Rejectionist Mary Daly advocated a complete dismissal of the Bible and the
formation of a post‑Christian feminist faith.[66]
Daly argued that Christian teachings deceived women into accepting an inferior
role and that any purported promise of “equality in Christ” was nothing more
than a covert glorification of men. Because Christianity sought to divorce
itself from ancient pagan religions, in which goddesses were often worshipped,
Daly argued that Christian theologians constructed their views of women as
exact opposites of the powerful goddesses. Thus, women were viewed as weak,
sinful, and passive, capable of redemption only by serving as docile wives and
mothers. Daly later proposed that women should create their own religious
tradition which was capable of conquering patriarchy and transforming the
male-evil power into female-good power.[67]
She hoped that a new feminist spiritual movement would be free from the dogma
of institutionalized religion and therefore both “Antichurch” and “Antichrist.”[68]

C. REVISIONISTSCHOOL

Proponents of the Revisionist school
argue that the Bible was written in a patriarchical society and therefore
contains inherent male-centered doctrines. However, revisionists use exegesis
and consideration of contextual factors such as cultural practices which
existed at the time of authorship, to explain passages which appear to advocate
the subordination of women.

Unlike Rejectionists, Revisionists
believe that the Bible is replete with teachings which should be upheld and in
particular, that the scriptures contain several passages which commend women.
Frances Willard, an early Revisionist and President of the Women’s Christian
Temperance Union, recognized that while certain Biblical passages could not be
interpreted as anything other than oppressive to women, such passages should be
read “in the light of the freeing activity of Jesus Christ” who was “woman’s
emancipator.”[69] Willard argued
that a correct reading of the Bible rendered a view of women as highly
valuable:

Mother-hearted women are called to be the saviors of
the [human] race. I speak it reverently, as a loyal worshiper of Him who said,
‘Mother, behold thy Son’... Next to God, the greatest organizer on this earth
is the mother. She who sends forth from the sanctuary of her own being a
little child has organized a great spiritual world, and set it moving in the
orbit of unchanging law. Hence woman, by her organism, is the greatest
organizer ever organized by our beneficent Creator.[70]

Thus, Willard urged that women learn
Hebrew and Greek to “bring out the women’s side of the [Bible]. We need the
stereoscopic view of truth in general, which can only be had when woman’s eye and
man’s eye together shall discern the perspective of the Bible’s full-orbed
revelation.”[71]

D. SUBLIMINATIONIST
HERMENEUTIC SCHOOL

Philosophers of the Sublimationist
Hermeneutic school seek to unearth the femininity of Biblical symbolism. For
example, Subliminationists argue that God is both masculine and feminine.
Hildegard of Bingen, an early female theologian of the Twelfth century, viewed
Eve and Mary to be symbols of God’s divine power to bring forth life.[72]

A contemporary Subliminationist,Virginia Ramey Mollenkott, argued that God was pictured in the Bible as a woman
giving birth, a nursing mother, a female homemaker, a bakerwoman, a mother
eagle, and a mother hen.[73] Mollenkott
also cited passages such as Psalm 123:2, “As the eyes of a maid look to the
hand of her mistress, so our eyes look to the Lord our God,” to declare that
God could be called feminine titles like “Mother” and “Mistress.”[74]

Joan Chamberlain Engelsman further
suggested that the Bible included an allegoric figure named “Wisdom,” who embodied
the female deity, Sophia.[75] Sophia was
unique from but equal with the male Godhead. Moreover, Engelsman and her
contemporaries argued that Sophia was God’s lover and together created the
earth with Him. Susan Cady, Marian Ronan, and Hal Taussig, who continued
Engelsman’s exploration of Sophia in their collaborative work, Wisdom’s
Feast, maintained that Jesus Christ was actually Sophia incarnate. The
authors then suggested that Apostles Paul and John sought to obscure her true
identity by creating the image of a wholly masculine Christ.[76]

In addition to feminizing aspects of
God and exploring the symbolic power of female characters in the Bible,
Subliminationists also re-interpreted the roles of male characters in
Scripture. For example, Mollenkott described Joseph, the human father of
Jesus, as an early feminist, because he showed willingness to accept a
secondary role, subordinate to Mary, in the birth of Jesus.

E. LIBERATIONISTSCHOOL

During the early 1970s, theologians
Letty Russell and Rosemary Radford Ruether began to develop a philosophy of
women’s liberation based upon the liberation theology of Latin America and other Third World countries. Russell argued that sex
discrimination was the root of all oppression and that women must strive to achieve
freedom for themselves. Ultimately, Russell and Ruether argued that women
should create a new humanity.

The Liberationist school maintains
that the Bible’s primary theme is the liberation of all people and that this “canon
within a canon” should guide all scriptural interpretation.[77]
Thus, the Bible should be interpreted as advocating the emancipation and
equality of women, and passages which suggest gender inequality must be read in
light of this overriding message. For example, Ruether argues that feminist
theology must focus on the liberating power of God, who Ruether refers to as
both masculine and feminine:

Feminist theology needs to affirm the God of exodus,
of liberation and new being... [God/ess] is not the creator, founder, or
sanctioner of patriarchical-hierarchical society... God/ess liberates us from
this false and alienated world, not by an endless continuation of the same
trajectory of alienation but as a constant breakthrough that points us to new
possibilities that are, at the same time, the regrounding of ourselves in the
primordial matrix, the original harmony. The liberating encounter with God/ess
is always an encounter with our authentic selves resurrected from underneath
the alienated self.[78]

Similarly, Elisabeth Schussler Fiorenza
argued that the Bible should not be considered a product of divine revelation
but also the natural product of a patriarchical society.[79]
Thus, re-interpretation of the Bible was necessary to reverse the use of the
scriptures as an ideological legitimization and justification for patriarchy.
Fiorenza advocated the use of “creative actualization” to analogize Biblical
passages with current struggles against oppression.

Under Fiorenza’s interpretive method,
a reader should be free to embellish or rewrite Biblical passages. For
example, Judith Plaskow applied Fiorenza’s hermeneutic to create a new account
of creation, in which God created a woman, Lilith, who ran away from Eden to escape becoming Adam’s helper.[80]
According to Plaskow’s account, Lilith returned to befriend Eve and empower her
new companion after sin entered Eden.
The account ends with a suggestion that Lilith and Eve will undermine God and
Adam by building a new and superior Eden.

Like Liberationists before her,
contemporary theologian Phyllis Trible also recognized the patriarchical
confines of the Bible and the various meanings which could be accorded to any
scriptural passage. Trible viewed the Bible as a tool for women to find gender
redemption, returning to creation in the image of God. Trible developed a
method of “rhetorical criticism” to uncover the masculine bias of Biblical
texts and to reformulate narratives.[81] Under her
interpretive method, Trible focused on the examples of abused and disparaged
women in the Bible and sought to retell the stories from the victims’
perspectives. In doing so, Trible believed that women could harness their
anger and disillusionment with the male writers of Scripture and begin to
redefine themselves and the Bible. For example, Trible hoped that retelling
the story of a nameless concubine who was brutally raped and murdered by a gang
of men[82] would
vindicate the suffering of countless unnamed women in the Bible.

F. LOYALIST
SCHOOL AS BEST REPRESENTATIVE OF CHRISTIAN FEMINISM

In examining the methods of Biblical
interpretation and ideals of the preceding schools, it appears that the
Loyalist school best reconciles the Biblical text with Feminist goals.
Loyalists remain faithful to the fundamental tenet of the Christian faith
holding that the Bible is the infallible Word of God. Moreover, Loyalist
philosophy is consistent with the goals of traditional Feminist thinkers who
seek to bring about gender equality and affirmation of women in society.
Although they accept role differentiation between the sexes, Loyalists argue
that differences need not obliterate the ultimate truth that men and women are
fundamentally equal.

The Rejectionist school cannot be
considered a legitimate branch of Christian feminism because it does not accept
any Judeo-Christian texts as valid. Although they recognize the need for
spirituality among women, Rejectionists wholly reject the person of Jesus
Christ and the authority of the Bible. Thus, Lerner concludes that
Rejectionists belie a “very real alienation from religious thought and [a]
rejection of all feminist Bible criticism which came from within the Christian
frame of reference.”[83]

Additionally, Rejectionists may be
criticized for supporting a reversal of gender roles. Although Loyalists and
other Christian feminists pursue gender equality, Rejectionist philosophy
appears to advocate a hierarchy in which men are subordinate to women. As
contemporary legal scholar Amy Miles contends, “Rejectionist theory visualizes
an upsetting state of the world. In a perfect Rejectionist world, women are
liberated, but rather than freeing the world from oppression, women become the
oppressors.”[84]

The Revisionist school properly
recognizes that the Bible was authored by men in a particular time period and
geographical community, who were undoubtedly products of societal
indoctrination. Thus, Revisionists do not believe in the infallibility of the
Bible; rather, they argue that the text’s meaning evolves over time and that
certain passages are simply invalid. Accordingly, the Revisionists seem to
undermine the fundamental Christian tenet that God’s principles revealed
through His Word are absolute and unchanging.

Like the Revisionists, Liberationists
reject the fundamental Christian belief that the Bible is infallible and
absolute. For example, Ruether maintained that only the Biblical passages
which related to women’s contemporary quest for liberation were valid.[85]
Similarly, Russell argued that the Bible’s legitimacy should be tested by
Christian communities seeking to bring about liberation in the greater society.[86]
Moreover, proponents of this school fail to address the Bible’s passages on
role differentiation of the sexes within the church and family.

Finally, the Subliminationists
inadequately represent both traditional feminists and Christians.
Subliminationists have been criticized by traditional feminists for focusing on
the other-status of women in the Bible and thereby perpetuating gender
differences rather than emphasizing gender equality.[87]
In particular, the feminization of certain aspects or images of Christianity
fails to address why God himself should remain masculine. For example, Ruether
questions the Subliminationist attempt of feminizing the Holy Spirit:

The feminine aspect of God is to be identified
particularly with the Holy Spirit. It is doubtful, however, that we should
settle for a concept of the Trinity that consists of two male and one female ‘persons.’
Such a concept of God falls easily into an androcentric or male-dominant
perspective. The female side of God then becomes a subordinate principle
underneath the dominant image of male divine sovereignty... In such a concept,
the feminine side of God, as a secondary or mediating principle, [acts] in the
same subordinate and limited roles in which females are allowed to act in the
patriarchical social order. The feminine can be mediator or recipient of
divine power in relation to creaturely reality. She can be God’s daughter, the
bride of the (male) soul. But she can never represent divine transcendence in
all fullness. For feminists to appropriate the ‘feminine’ side of God within
this patriarchical gender hierarchy is simply to reinforce the problem of
gender stereotyping on the level of God-language. We need to go beyond the
idea of a ‘feminine side’ of God... and question the assumption that the
highest symbol of divine sovereignty still remains exclusively male.[88]

In addition, the feminine-masculine
dichotomy created by Subliminationists undermines the deity of God. For
example, Mary A. Kassian, a contemporary Loyalist, argues that
Subliminationists reduce God’s character to human-defined sex roles: “[Subliminationists]
presented an image of a deity who is bisexual or androgynous rather than one
who transcends the polarity of the sexes.”[89]
Moreover, Kassian contends that the Subliminationist use of feminine metaphor
diffuses God’s uniqueness: “God became ‘rock,’ ‘eagle,’ ‘door,’ etc. His
personality was thus diffused to encompass all natural phenomena. Renaming God
in a way other than He had named Himself logically led to an erosion of God’s
independent personality.”[90]

The Subliminationists can also been
criticized on other grounds. The emphasis on esoteric Biblical symbolism tends
to isolate feminists who seek to bring about real world change. Moreover,
Subliminationists neglect to address Biblical passages which appear to advocate
female subordination. Thus, the Sublimationist Hermeneutic school appears only
to provide a symbolic method of appreciating Scripture.

III. LOYALIST MODEL OF GENDER

Having concluded that the Loyalist
school best reconciles Christianity and feminism, this section applies Loyalist
philosophy to define the roles of women in the family, church, and greater
society. In particular, the following subsections provide Loyalist interpretations
of scriptural passages which have often received criticism for advocating
gender inequality.

A. WOMEN IN THE FAMILY

In the book of Ephesians, the Apostle
Paul wrote that women should submit to their husbands “as to the Lord. For the
husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church, his body,
of which he is the Savior. Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives
should submit to their husbands in everything.”[91]
Paul further elaborated on the husband’s role, commanding men to emulate
Christ:

Love your wives, just as Christ loved the church and
gave Himself up for her to make her holy, cleansing her by the washing with
water through the word, and to present her to himself as a radiant church,
without stain or wrinkle or any other blemish, but holy and blameless. In this
same way, husbands ought to love their wives as their own bodies. He who loves
his wife loves himself.[92]

First, Loyalists point out that the
Bible mandates that men and women mutually submit to one another, as Paul
commanded in prefacing his instructions to wives and husbands.[93]
Thus, there should be reciprocity of duty and service in marriage. Women
should submit to their husbands out of reverence for Christ and in respect to
the order which he prescribed for families.[94]

However, Loyalists apply linguisitic
analysis to show that submission should not be confused with that of a
master-slave relationship. First, the Greek word used for “submit” was hupotassomai,
which connoted a voluntary pledging of support, as opposed to the Greek word peitharcheo,
which was used to describe the submission of children or slaves to their
masters. Second, the Greek word for “head” used by Paul was kephale, loosely
translated as “the first solider into battle” rather than the Greek word, arche,
used to describe military rulers.[95] Thus, the
portrait of male leadership should involve sacrifice, bravery, and honor, but
not dominance.

Finally, Loyalists point out that
Paul instructed men to love their wives in the utmost sacrificial and giving
manner, to the point of laying down their lives. Thus, husbands appear to bear
the greater burden of responsibility and deference toward their wives. In
order to follow this command, men would have to value their wives with utmost
respect and honor. Moreover, it is unlikely that wives whose husbands are
willing to relinquish their lives for their sake can be legitimately viewed as
oppressed and subordinated.

The Apostle Peter also instructed
women to submit to their husbands: “For this is the way the holy women of the
past who put their hope in God used to make themselves beautiful. They were
submissive to their own husbands, like Sarah, who obeyed Abraham and called him
her master. You are her daughters if you do what is right and do not give way
to fear. Husbands, in the same way be considerate as you live with your wives,
and treat them with respect as the weaker partner and as heirs with you of the
gracious gift of life, so that nothing will hinder your prayers.”[96]

Like Paul’s instructions, this
passage provides different duties for men and women in the marriage
relationship. Wives should submit in love to their husbands, whereas husbands
should respect their wives. In addition, Loyalists clarify that Sarah did not
call Abraham her master in all things; rather, this passage points to a
specific incident when Sarah used the Hebrew word “master,” synonymous for the
word “husband,” in jest.[97] Moreover,
several passages in the book of Genesis depict Sarah as being assertive and
independent.[98]

Finally, the Greek word for “weaker”
did not connote moral or intellectual inferiority; rather, Peter likely
intended to refer to sheer physical strength. Given the social norms of his
day, in which women did not participate in athletics, Loyalists argue that
Peter was probably conditioned to think that women were generally physically
weaker.

Finally, Loyalists refute
misogynistic interpretations of the creation account by using linguistic
analysis. For example, the book of Genesis describes the creation of woman in
which God stated: “It is not good for the man to be alone. I will make a
helper suitable for him.”[99] Loyalists
point out that the Hebrew word for “helper”, ezer, was not meant to
suggest that women were created to be slaves of men. Rather, the same word is
better translated as “partner” and was used to describe God himself nearly
twenty other times in the Old Testament. Thus, women should be viewed as
having an important and authoritative role alongside men.

B. WOMEN IN THE CHURCH

In the church, Loyalists also accept
some degree of role differentiation between men and women. However, the sexes
are fundamentally equal and mutually dependent in Christ. For example, 1
Corinthians 11:11-12 provides that “in the Lord... woman is not independent of
man, nor is man independent of woman. For as woman came from man, so also man
is born of woman. But everything comes from God.” Moreover, role
differentiation does not imply hierarchy between the sexes: “Those parts of the
body [of Christ] that seem to be weaker are indispensable, and the parts that
we think are less honorable we treat with special honor... There should be no
division in the body... Its parts should have equal concern for each other.”[100]
Thus, the Apostle Paul elaborated on the role of men and women in the church:

God is not a God of disorder but of peace. As in all
the congregations of the saints, women should remain silent in the churches.
They are not allowed to speak, but must remain in submission, as the Law says.
If they want to inquire about something, they should ask their own husbands at
home; for it is disgraceful for a woman to speak in the church.[101]

Loyalists first point out that
contextually, Paul referred in this passage to a specific problem of disorderly
gossip and conversation occurring during the worship services of his time. He
could not have meant that women were to be silent on all things because women
were allowed to prophesy and pray in church, as he recognized in 1 Corinthians
11:5. Moreover, unmarried women were facially exempt from Paul’s admonition.
However, Loyalists accept that women should be submissive, as in marriage, to
preserve order in the church.

In 1 Timothy 2:11-15, Paul wrote that
“a woman should learn in quietness and full submission. I do not permit a
woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she must be silent. For Adam
was formed first, then Eve. And Adam was not the one deceived; it was the
woman who was deceived and became a sinner. But women will be saved through
childbearing--if they continue in faith, love and holiness with propriety.”
Thus, Paul again set forth the submissive role of women in the church, adding
that this order was established by the fall of mankind. However, Paul could
not have meant that women were saved only by becoming wives and mothers, as
this contradicts his message in Ephesians 2:8: “It is by grace you have been
saved, though faith--and this is not from yourselves, it is the gift of
God--not by works, so that no one can boast.”

Generally, Loyalists interpret this
passage in two different ways. Paul may have meant that women who have faith
need not be anxious to suffer pain or death during childbirth (which was not
uncommon in Paul’s time), as they will be saved from Eve’s curse.
Alternatively, Paul may have intended to refer to spiritual childbirth. In
particular, although Eve condemned women in Eden,
Mary redeemed women with her crucial role in Christ’s birth.[102]
In addition, Paul could not have meant that women should not take any teaching
or authoritative role, because they were allowed to prophesy in the services
which he conducted. Moreover, Paul acknowledged that his pupil, Timothy, had
been taught of the Scriptures from his mother and grandmother.[103]

Loyalists also point out that as Paul
declared, “God appointed in the church first of all apostles, second prophets,
third teachers, then workers of miracles, also those able to help others, those
with gifts of administration, and those speaking in different kinds of tongues,”[104]
the New Testament provides examples of women holding all of these positions.[105]
Finally, the context of this passage is important: Paul referred to a group of
untrained Ephesian women who tended to domineer the men in the church and
spread false teachings.

As an overriding theme, Loyalists
emphasize the fundamental equality of the sexes in the church. As Paul wrote
to the Galatian church, “there is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male
nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.”[106]
Order based on gender, thus, is necessary for the human world in marriage and
in church, but is ultimately unnecessary in perfect communion with God.

C. WOMEN IN SOCIETY

The Bible is full of passages
describing women who take authoritative roles in the greater society.
Loyalists point to the Old Testament depictions of Deborah, the judge who later
led Israel to military victory; the Queen of
Sheba, the ruler who traveled a great distance to came to trade with and learn
from King Solomon; and Esther, the queen who valiantly exposed a scheme to
murder the Jews.[107] The New
Testament also contains positive descriptions of women in early Christian
society, including Lydia, a successful businesswoman who
became the first Christian convert in Europe;
and Priscilla, a respected teacher in Corinth and Ephesus.[108]

Many Loyalists cite the portrait of
the noble and godly woman in Proverbs 31:10-31 as evidence that the Bible
encourages women to be equals in society. In this passage, the female
protagonist appears to be the primary breadwinner in her home.[109]
She is described as hardworking and makes wise business decisions on her own.[110]
She is also characterized as physically strong and intellectually proficient.[111]
She is charitable and active in her community.[112]
She is able to teach others and is well-respected in her society.[113]
In addition, her husband arises to praise her for her noble character and good
works.[114] This
chapter in Proverbs thus indicates the Bible’s allowance for women to
participate in leadership outside of the church. Any gender differentiation or
hierarchy prescribed for marriage and the church does not appear to rigidly
translate into the outside world. In fact, such interpretations of scripture
have met relatively slight resistance from traditional Christian theologians.
For example, even conservative officials of the Vatican have advocated equality for women holding careers outside of
the home for a considerable number of years.[115]

In conclusion, Loyalist
interpretations of scripture present a redemptive stance for a heavily
criticized and misunderstood Bible. The Loyalist school appears to reconcile a
primary goal of feminism in eradicating inequality between the sexes with the
principles of Christianity, one of which being that God created male and
female. Although some gender difference is presupposed by the Loyalists,
critical interpretation of Biblical text reveals that God intended for men and
women to receive basic equal rights and privileges. Moreover, differentiation
of roles occurs only in the family and church spheres, where the secular law
tends to avoid regulation.

[18]. See Aristotle, supra note 15 at
7‑9. See also Wald, supra note 11 at 173 (“Essentially,
the major role of the female sex is to produce the ‘matter’ for the state.
Women are tied to the family and home in order to preserve the political order
of society. Confined to the private role of mother, women are kept out of the
public sphere, and they are placed in a subservient position to men. Both
Plato and Aristotle adhere to the idea that gender is determined by biology,
and that the essence of being a woman in society is a mere reflection of the
natural inferiority of the female sex in reproduction.”).

[35]. Rosemary Radford Ruether, Misogynism and
Virginal Feminism in the Fathers of the Church, in Religions and Sexism: Images of the Women in the Jewish and
Christian Traditions 157 (R.R. Ruether, ed., 1974) (citing Tertullian, De Cultu Feminarium, I, 1).

[70]. Root of
Bitterness: Documents of the Social History of American Women (Nancy F.
Cott et al., eds., 1996) (reprinting Frances Willard, The Dawn of Woman’s Day, in Our Day: A Record and Review of Current Reform
2, No. 11 345-360 (November 1888)).

[98]. For example, Sarah commands Abram to build a
family through her maidservant Hagar in Genesis 16:2. Later, Sarah orders
Hagar to leave the camp in Genesis 16:5-6. In both instances, Abram takes a
passive role.

Categories:

Tags:

There are too many errors in this book for unsophisticated readers. McLaren’s book has value only to readers who recognize the mistakes but are willing to learn about a position that springs from ideology and a theological framework. For me, the emerging church movement is enough to consider by itself without flawed economics intertwined